Equity, Evidence & Ethics: Assessing the Implications of Outdoor Smoke-free Policies for Vulnerable Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smoke-free policies in outdoor settings are becoming increasingly common. Economic and social conditions tend to influence tobacco use patterns as well as exposure to secondhand smoke. Thus, active and passive smoking are both health equity and social justice concerns.\nSmoking on the Margins is a multi-component,mixed-methods project that applies an ethical framework to outdoor smoke-free policies in order to identify both concerns and opportunities to promote health and health equity.\nJustification for smoke-free policies\n Smoke-free spaces are primarily justified on the basis of three goals:\n1) Reducing exposure to secondhand smoke;\n2) Encouraging people to quit smoking; and\n3) Preventing youth smoking initiation.\nSmoke-free policies in parks and beaches may have a small positive population health impact. Such policies reduce secondhand smoke exposure by eliminating a combination of circumstances that create sufficient concentration of tobacco smoke to pose serious health risk; such bans may also facilitate smoking cessation or reduction for some people. There is little evidence to date,however, that smoke-free policies in parks and on beaches have an impact on the prevention of smoking initiation among youth.\nAs well, the documented positive benefits may be offset by other, unintended and/or inequitable burdens, such as when the stigmatization of smoking makes it harder for some smokers to quit or contributes to greater health inequalities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".